EXCELLENT point, I think a lot of this comes under the banner of "the grass is always greener....." Compared to other teams, I think we lose a bit more because of their perceived value as being multiple superbowl winners, but probably not more than the OTHER good teams in the league.

I think we have filled in our losses pretty well. I would like to think that we'd be better off with Willie's experience, but I don't think we are lacking anything ATHLETICALLY. The fact we lost BOTH starting WR's, plus didn't sign or traded the other 3 on the depth chart makes those loses more obvious, but in the long run, I think 1-5 we might EVENTUALLY be better.

AV's loss COULD hurt, but through 7 games, I'd have to say that our kicking game is ACTUALLY better, given the fact Gotkowski is the best KO man in the league....and Adam wasn't. Believe me having a team start on the 25 or LESS is significant compared with having them start on the 35 or MORE, which was the case last year.

Will this kid be able to kick the game winner, I'm sure he will. Will he miss some game winners, I'm sure he will. Adam missed several game winners as well. Just ask Pete Carrol. AND speaking of production under center, let me remind everyone that in the last games the Pats played of 2003, 2004, and 2005, the GREAT AND POWERFUL AV missed THREE FG attempts INSIDE the 40.

There's no simple answer to this question - and in fact the question itself isn't so simple either.

All teams have players that approach and become free agents

I think we all agree that with 3 SBs in 4 years, the Patriots were/are a dynasty

As such, there is going to be a higher demand for, and a higher price tag for, Patriots players who approach or go into free agency.

Since the Patriots front office will not overpay - which is what got them the 3 SBs in the first place - when that happens, the team is often outbid.

This offseason was also somewhat unique as the new CBA $$ allowed many GMs to spend like drunken sailors - again, something that the Patriots won't do.

But even when "losing" players, one has to look beyond a simple "who we lost" stat.

For example, we "lost" Damien Woody. What happened? Koppen stepped in and became a top tier C - and in fact has been resigned long term.

Was it a bad thing that we lost Woody? Not at all - Koppen did as good a job - in fact better considering Woody's longsnapping - at a lower price for quite a few years.

The point is, when the Patriots lose players they often fill those holes with younger, cheaper, players with more upside and potential. It doesn't always work out but, then again, we are 6-1 at this point, and if you look at teams that added former Patriots players, you're not going to find too many with better records.

.... I'd have to say that our kicking game is ACTUALLY better, given the fact Gotkowski is the best KO man in the league....and Adam wasn't. Believe me having a team start on the 25 or LESS is significant compared with having them start on the 35 or MORE, which was the case last year.

....

Click to expand...

And tomorrow night ...
the Patriots get to RECEIVE those nice short kickoffs.

Thanks to BetterThan for an inciteful observation. Thanks to patfanken for some facts to provide a pragmatic perspective. Appreciate your contributions ken - hope to see many more posts here.

The following link let's you look at free agent losses/pickups for all the teams:http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/freeagents
Some AFC teams are interesting. The Steelers signed a lot of their own free agents. The Chargers had an interesting small list of player movement. The Dolphins had the largest amount of player turnover with the most additions (sparse draft choices this year). It is interesting that the media pundits would pick them as so dominant with such a huge change in roster composition (including a new QB).

patfanken said:

EXCELLENT point, I think a lot of this comes under the banner of "the grass is always greener....." Compared to other teams, I think we lose a bit more because of their perceived value as being multiple superbowl winners, but probably not more than the OTHER good teams in the league.

I think we have filled in our losses pretty well. I would like to think that we'd be better off with Willie's experience, but I don't think we are lacking anything ATHLETICALLY. The fact we lost BOTH starting WR's, plus didn't sign or traded the other 3 on the depth chart makes those loses more obvious, but in the long run, I think 1-5 we might EVENTUALLY be better.

AV's loss COULD hurt, but through 7 games, I'd have to say that our kicking game is ACTUALLY better, given the fact Gotkowski is the best KO man in the league....and Adam wasn't. Believe me having a team start on the 25 or LESS is significant compared with having them start on the 35 or MORE, which was the case last year.

Will this kid be able to kick the game winner, I'm sure he will. Will he miss some game winners, I'm sure he will. Adam missed several game winners as well. Just ask Pete Carrol. AND speaking of production under center, let me remind everyone that in the last games the Pats played of 2003, 2004, and 2005, the GREAT AND POWERFUL AV missed THREE FG attempts INSIDE the 40.

Last year, 150+ FAs changed teams, as compared to 107 the year before. This was primarily due to the overheated FA market that occurred due to the large (and unexpected) increase in the cap. Thats an average of a little less than 5 players per team.

Given the larger amount of money chasing FA's, and the percieved "premium" that players from a successfull franchise will command, I don't think that we got hit signficantly more than any other successfull team. Anyone think we should have topped any of our FA's offers ?

One thing that kind of bugs me is that PATRIOT LOSSES are so blown up, but when a team like Indy loses Edgerrin James (arguably a bigger impact player than any that we lost), and 1 1/2 starters (David Thornton and, sometimes starter Larry Tripplet) there aren't nearly the same number of articles, nor the degree of hyperventiliation. It's ridiculous, and obviously so.

One thing that kind of bugs me is that PATRIOT LOSSES are so blown up, but when a team like Indy loses Edgerrin James (arguably a bigger impact player than any that we lost), and 1 1/2 starters (David Thornton and, sometimes starter Larry Tripplet) there aren't nearly the same number of articles, nor the degree of hyperventiliation. It's ridiculous, and obviously so.

First of all, the media really seems to underrate players while they are on the team, but when the players are sought after as free agents, the media decides that that player must be one of the 'star' players on the team. Why else would the player be so sought after by other teams? Why else would the Patriots player be so insulted by a value offer from Bioli? With a little whispering from the player's agent to the Borges types of the media, and bingo, we have a new 'pro-bowl' level guy leaving town. Obviously, that player must be a huge factor on our superbowl team.

Unfortunately for the media, this is not true. Most of our players are good but not great, and all are replaceable except for #12. Every one of them.

The draft is what will keep this team competitive and under the salary cap, along with the saintly players that stay in town for a value offer. Those are the guys that really help us win at the end of the day, by being long term Patriot players, instead of overpaid glamour boys on lesser teams.

I think what it comes down to is the organizational philosophy of the New England Patriots. They have a system that, from the top on down, is bought into and followed by every member of the management team. A big part of that system is to keep a solid football team on the field every year. To do that, the team cannot overpay for one player because that would compromise their ability to fill the roster with mid level players now and into the future. So in losing those "big name talents", the Patriots allow themselves to stack the roster with under rated mid level guys, which leads to the "being able to overcome injuries" and the "quality depth" terms being used so often. Whereas other teams may pay their "stars" too much and have their seasons ruined by one injury.

McGinist was at the end of his career, hardly projected to be a big impact player on the field. Most teams lose one or two of these a year.

Click to expand...

Perhaps so, but he got $6M guaranteed from the Browns, it sounds like they didn't believe he's quite at the end of his career. Clearly they overpaid but don't dismiss McGinest as nothing -- he was put in the same catageory for the Pats years ago by some yet made important contributions recently. You can't say McGinest isn't valuable because of his age yet claim Seau is valuable (as many have done).

Givens is a second string wide reciever.

Click to expand...

A "second string WR" is wrong, he was the #2 WR which is still a starter. And Branch was a #1 WR who others felt was one of the best WRs in the league.

So the team lost two players of real impact, another to pseudo-retirement, and another that was good for two big plays a year. Is this more than the average good team loses in an average year?

Click to expand...

What you described is a normal loss, but what you described is definitely not what we lost, you are not being honest with yourself. We lost more than is normal. (What we lost is normal for a recent SB winner with players looking to cash in, but that's not normal for everyone and has more often than not led to the downfall of those teams).

That doesn't mean I am saying we should have kept them all, I think the team has overall done a very good job of making these choices. But we definitely lost value, and time will tell if we have adequately replaced that value. Right now it looks good, but get back to me after the season for a final judgement.

Perhaps so, but he got $6M guaranteed from the Browns, it sounds like they didn't believe he's quite at the end of his career. Clearly they overpaid but don't dismiss McGinest as nothing -- he was put in the same catageory for the Pats years ago by some yet made important contributions recently. You can't say McGinest isn't valuable because of his age yet claim Seau is valuable (as many have done).

Click to expand...

I am confused about what point you are trying to make. You say they didn't believe he's at the end of his career, but then you say they clearly overpaid ?? ?? And what does how Willie was regarded in past years have anything to do with this year ? And don't forget that Willie's cap number was 65% higher last year than any other linebacker. And his salary portion of the cap was over double any other linebacker. Was he really that much more of a contributor than Bruschi, Vrabel, or Colvin ? I don't think so. So the point was, not that he couldn't very probably be a solid contributor, but that he was also more likely because of age to be less of an impact player than last year - that seems a pretty reasonable assumption. And the bottom line is, of course, that the Patriots simply didn't think his contribution was worth what he could get from the Brown's. Do you really disagree with that ??

alamo said:

A "second string WR" is wrong, he was the #2 WR which is still a starter. And Branch was a #1 WR who others felt was one of the best WRs in the league.

Click to expand...

But the very definition of 'second string' is that the WR is a #2 WR !! ?? !! And I don't think you can find any media source that says that Branch was one of the top 12 receivers in the league. So you may have a funny definition of 'one of the best' if that means in the neighborhood of 15th to 20th in ranking of WRs.

alamo said:

What you described is a normal loss, but what you described is definitely not what we lost, you are not being honest with yourself. We lost more than is normal. (What we lost is normal for a recent SB winner with players looking to cash in, but that's not normal for everyone and has more often than not led to the downfall of those teams).

Click to expand...

You really do need to look at what all of the teams lost:http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/freeagents
and I don't see how you can make that statement. It was actually quite a 'normal' loss comparing to most teams in the league regardless of record.

alamo said:

That doesn't mean I am saying we should have kept them all, I think the team has overall done a very good job of making these choices. But we definitely lost value, and time will tell if we have adequately replaced that value. Right now it looks good, but get back to me after the season for a final judgement.

Click to expand...

Yes, we definitely lost 'value' and we definitely got new 'value'. I think your first thought that 'it looks good' would be appropriate. But why did you then copp out and take the cheap 'out' of electing to use hindsight at the end of the season ? Stand up and be counted. Do you think the team is weaker or stronger than last year ? And folks can agree or disagree with you. Personally, I disagree with what seems to be your tone that the team could well be weaker ... but maybe I just don't get your tone correctly.

I am disputing the original comment "So the team lost two players of real impact, another to pseudo-retirement, and another that was good for two big plays a year." Which clearly downplays what we lost.

You say they didn't believe he's at the end of his career, but then you say they clearly overpaid ?? ??

Click to expand...

If they thought he was at the end of his career they would have offered veteran minimum. Instead they offered $12M over 3 years, of which is guaranteed $7M even if they cut him today. They offered too much, but betterthanthealternative called McGinest's departure "pseudo retirement". We should all retire so well. My point is that clearly at least someone believes McGinest is still an impact player, as your comment "he was also more likely because of age to be less of an impact player than last year" shows you do too.

And the bottom line is, of course, that the Patriots simply didn't think his contribution was worth what he could get from the Brown's. Do you really disagree with that ??

Click to expand...

Not what this thread is about. This thread's point is we didn't lose more than the average team.

But the very definition of 'second string' is that the WR is a #2 WR !! ?? !!

Click to expand...

The dictionary definition of "second string"â€‚is: "Sports. the squad of players available either individually or as a team to replace or relieve those who start a game." Since normally 2 WRs start, by definition the #2 WR is first string. Again, my point is this thread is downplaying the losses to make it seem like we lost almost nothing, which is wrong.

And I don't think you can find any media source that says that Branch was one of the top 12 receivers in the league. So you may have a funny definition of 'one of the best' if that means in the neighborhood of 15th to 20th in ranking of WRs.

Click to expand...

I can find such a source - it's the list of largest WR contracts. Again, downplay him all you want but he was clearly a major loss.

You really do need to look at what all of the teams lost:http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/freeagents
and I don't see how you can make that statement. It was actually quite a 'normal' loss comparing to most teams in the league regardless of record.

Click to expand...

I see the Patriots lost 5 starters (Vinatieri, Branch, Givens, Ashworth and McGinest) all of whom are now making more than $2.5M a year on other teams. Which teams on that free agent list did I miss which lost that many starters to $2.5M+ contracts? Please name them, I scanned the list and didn't see any, maybe I missed them or am just not as familiar with some of those players as you are?